124 Responses to WA Liberals brand Abbott an appeaser

An appeaser he is, and also a ‘cheek turner’. They slap him on the cheek and he turns it saying slap this side as well. For 1400 years the muslims have been doing what the radicals are still doing to this day. Abbott wants them to hop into bed with him so he throws his moral values out the window and bends over in front of them. Only a foolish cheek turning appeaser does that. They will never assimilate in Australia. They don’t understand western culture and will never be part of it. They only seem to be at peace when the leader has a gun pointing at their head.

Between the Greens, the ABC, Muslim spokesmen, Gillian Triggs at the HRC, the Press Council (etc etc etc), Tony Abbott has been slapped (and then turned) so many times, he must be numb in both cheeks by now.
But I’m sure that soon they’ll see what a nice guy he is, and come the run up to the next election, they’ll actually start rooting for him! *oh boy*

Another appalling property of 18C is that Truth is no defence at law to the charge of causing offence….. an accurate statement can be banned speech…..unbelievable.

I’ll never vote for a Party that declares Truth is no defence in a Court

Merely accurately quoting the Koran in public, recounting it’s advice on the violent treatment of infidels, Jews, apostates, homosexuals and non compliant women has been seen as offensive by Muslims…..go figure.

That all turn on who are “they”. I’m sure that some criminals and terrorists will always justify their actions in some way or another. The fact that some people might claim that Allah, or Jesus, or any other person/deity justifies their criminal behaviour is an irrelevance and we need people to say so more often.

The muslims and many of the africans are making a huge leap in culture,from a primitive ,savage society ,not that far removed from the middle ages to a modern semi communist ,welfare society , created by weak selfopinionated academics and professional politicians all looking out for themselves. These mendicants ,muslims ,somalis,sudanesae ,politicians and academics ,do not contribute ,they just take.
It is hard to get rid of the pollies and academic as they were born here,hiwever its easy to get rid of the foreign rubbish and their Aussie born Arab kids .The parents can be deported and the kids can gi fight for isis in Iraq.Think of the centrelink payments we would save, after the cleanout ,start on the Aussie bludgers!

Google taqiyya and kitman. Thats why I would not trust Keysar Trad, Waleed Aly and their associated cohorts as far as I could dropkick them.
As for anyone that can tell the difference between a moderate and ‘radical’ muslim, you are a better man then I am, Gunga Din, because I can’t.

That all turn on who are “they”. I’m sure that some criminals and terrorists will always justify their actions in some way or another. The fact that some people might claim that Allah, or Jesus, or any other person/deity justifies their criminal behaviour is an irrelevance and we need people to say so more often.

Rubbish. What is it with ideologues that they can’t see the bleeding obvious?

The fact people claim that Allah justifies their criminal behaviour is indeed relevant. Extremely relevant in fact. Every terrorist convicted in Australia this century was carrying out Allah’s will. IS is carrying out its genocidal rampage because it is carrying out Allah’s will. Hamas is attempting to murder Jews because it is Allah’s will. Boko Haram are carrying out their murderous acts because it is Allah’s will.

The Koran and Hadith justify their behaviour. So called ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t criticise the terrorists – in the rare occasions they do actually criticise them – on theological grounds. They can’t because they would lose that argument. Allah is on the side of the terrorist.
Your moral equivalence here is disappointing to say the least Sinc. What we actually do need people to say more often is that the totalitarian culture masquerading as a religion known as Islam does not have an ability to assimilate into civilised culture.

Just for the record , I thnk Abbott is the big problem here.
He just isn’t and never was a good leader.
Anyone who says he was good in opposition is usually a lefty and can’t let themselves believe just how bad labor was. Labor killed itself. Abbott was just lucky.
No matter who was leading the libs they would have won.
The media thought he was the better choice of leader as he would be easier to destroy than some others.
Being rabidly left and out of touch with the electorate they didn’t get how hated labor was.
Being slightly better than the total traitorous filth in before is not good enough.

If… when, Tony Abbott is not Lib leader anymore, the odds are that Malcolm Turnbull will be given the nod. If you think that Abbott isn’t holding up conservative values, do you really think Turnbull will be their champion (in any way)?

What about the majority of Australians who supported change at the election?

Don’t we count? (rhetorical)

5000? So the tenured academics and grievance industry leeches outrank the general population. Take it to a referendum and let’s see what the people think. If it was good enough for the republic issue it should be good enough for freedom of speech.

He just isn’t and never was a good leader.
Anyone who says he was good in opposition is usually a lefty and can’t let themselves believe just how bad labor was.

Abbott was really good when he rolled Turnbull over the carbon tax and subsequently won the election on the strength of it. My guess is that much of the problem is Credlin. Does anyone know how long she has been advising him?

I realised Joe was a lightweight way back in 2007 when he canoodled with Rudd on Kochie’s breakfast program. The whole exercise was an effort to make Rudd palatable to the voters by implying that he was OK if a high profile Lib would appear with him.

’1411033 at 2.31′Try to remember that if it wasn’t for joke “conservative” Andrew Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

OK Hoppalong! That’s what the whole thing is about. Why can’t someone say what one thinks?
What happened to Bolt just shows what a pathetic law it is and one that is against the freedom of speech.
Keating once told an idiot to ‘get a job’, nobody worried about that.
Anyway, giving in to the Mullahs is not the answer and never will be.

If anyone is wondering why members of the Muslim community do not speak out against the horrors of Jihad or speak up in support of tougher laws, apostacy is most probably the reason. To not agree with Jihad is as good as saying that Allah and his messenger were wrong, which translates as apostacy and probably blasphemy. This from the religion of peace and tolerance.

TA needs to understand that nothing he does is acceptable to many people. As I read somewhere – if TA were to personally discover a cure for cancer tomorrow, the luvvies would slam him for closing oncology wards and sacking nurses.

There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action
than the one which has just desolated great areas of the globe. It could
have been prevented without the firing of a single shot, but no one would
listen.
—Winston Churchill, 19461

Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth. Had Bolt been factual in his statements, he could have relied on 18D. But he wasn’t. He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

18C has been around for nigh on 20 years without issue until Eatock v Bolt, and then suddenly it was the worstest thing in the world. What seems to be forgotten/overlooked/ignored by some is that Bolt muddied the waters with falsehoods.

Drinking shouldn’t be a problem, Struth.
Just hold the glass, stubbie or bottle more or less upright until it’s level with your mouth.
Then part and pout your lips, tip the glass, stubbie or bottle on a angle, and swallow.

Ant
#1410915, posted on August 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
I suppose, Beertruck, the diff is that a “radical” drills a bullet through the back of someone’s head in one part of the world while a “moderate” justifies it away on the other by blaming the joos.

But can you tell them apart, Ant? They all follow the Koran. Some more follow the Koran more ‘literally’ than others. How many muslims in France were classed as ‘moderate’ but participated in the riots? We are seeing a few riots here and God forbid we have them on the same scale as France. As I posted before, google taqiyya and kitman and with that, you almost have to approach anything Team Islam says in the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ file.

Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth. Had Bolt been factual in his statements, he could have relied on 18D. But he wasn’t. He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

Where do I start. There isn’t a crime of racism in this country so you can’t be convicted of it. He was sued in a civil court by the applicants. As Tim Soutphommasane says:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is a civil provision. You can’t be “prosecuted” or be “convicted” for a breach, as some suggest

It’s also not a crime in this country to be inaccurate, nor is it a crime, generally, to lie.

So it’s not an offence to be racist, and it is not an offence to make mistakes or lie.

However, if someone is offended by your words and thinks you are racist, and in saying those words you have made mistakes or told lies, 18C has created a statutory tort for that purpose.

The fact that there was no appeal, only pathetic mewling, speaks volumes.

No it doesn’t – obviously. Because the way 18C is constructed did allow Bromberg J to find as he did. You are confusing law and justice. It may well be that Bromberg was correct in the first instance and NL’s lawyers didn’t think a full bench/SC appeal would get across the line. You are mocking Bolt because he was “convicted” of being a “CRAB”, but we are well aware that under the provisions he lost.

Many of us here believe it is fundamentally bad law and mocking Bolt because he lost is not material to the question we are discussing, namely, should it go.

JC it wouldn’t have to go to the High Court, News Ltd had plenty of resources to take it to (I think) the full bench of the Federal Court (I’m not sure of the exact appeal process for the RDA). Remember Nalliah went VCAT -> Supreme Court -> back to VCAT I think.

But I think Bolt wouldn’t have won except in the High Court, and the “implied freedom” of speech established a long time ago has been gradually chipped away. I personally don’t think the HC would have invalidated 18C and progressing all the way through the court system would have been pointless, plus they would never recover those costs from the plaintiffs. You have to win the last case and be fighting a party with deep pockets to come out on top. Would he have been better off winning a HC case or losing in the FC and being a free speech martyr?

The point is that there was no material loss sustained by News limited nor by Bolt. In fact I don’t believe Bolt/News even published an apology. What Mordy did was to craft his judgement in such a way where the loss for Bolt/News would be minimal thereby reducing the chances of an appeal while calling Bolt out as racist.

Mordy never wanted this thing to go to appeal because it would have been facing the issue of implied free speech.

Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

So what? The Left make erroneous statements all the time. Mike Carlton’s final column was a shocker. The question is, should we waste public money going after people in the courts for “getting their facts wrong in a newspaper”?

Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

Have you read the articles? I suspect you haven’t. I have. They certainly did use provocative language, and if I was the subject of one of them I would be mightily upset. He was sarcastic and personal.

On the other hand, they were about government policy and its implementation. The result of the ruling is that some areas of government policy is considered out of bounds for discussion.

There were some minor errors which Bolt has acknowledged.

He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

That alone – that a journalist can be denounced as a “convicted racist” – is reason enough for the law’s repeal.

The point is that there was no material loss sustained by News limited nor by Bolt. In fact I don’t believe Bolt/News even published an apology. What Mordy did was to craft his judgement in such a way where the loss for Bolt/News would be minimal thereby reducing the chances of an appeal while calling Bolt out as racist.

As Mark Steyn has pointed out again and again, the process IS the punishment. Most 18C cases don’t even cost the complainant anything to file. At least here the applicants committed to paying legal fees.
The issue of an apology was to occur in conference between the parties. if they didn’t pursue that I don’t understand why. The judge presumably expected they would? He wasn’t in a position to impose some massive punishment on Bolt. The applicants had only sought (I think) an apology and prohibition of republication if I remember rightly.

I’m not aware of any of the very large number of 18C cases resulting some spectacular “material loss”. Although there are very large numbers of people inconvenienced, exploited and in many cases experiencing fines in the sub-$10,000 range which are very distressing for them. The issue for some of us is the chilling effect it has and, yes, even the principle of having a law like this. Bolt is a poster boy but check out how many proceedings have occurred which were dealt with outside the courtroom. Those respondents are powerless compared to Bolt and I think the process is unjust.

Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

Mordy was just a dishonest douchebag. The core argument by Bolt was that the loot some of these arseholes were getting was really meant for …. you know , aboriginal… who kinda look a little aboriginal and not blonde, red headed troughers who have lived all their lives in the burbs of the big cities and have only seen a boomerang in airport gift shops like everyone else. The white nine’s argument is that you can be as blonde as Charlize Theron, lived in the burbs and gone to private schools but still be a full aboriginal like you see here

All the stuff about untruths and distortions were basically a sideline to the central issue. It was only Mordy using those small sidelines crap to create a story as to why he found against Bolt.

There was a material loss: the articles in question cannot be published in Australia.
They had to be un-published.
If I were to post one of them here, I would be breaking the law. You are literally not allowed to read them.
Furthermore, other articles on similar topics may not be published in Australia.

There was a material loss: the articles in question cannot be published in Australia.
They had to be un-published.
If I were to post one of them here, I would be breaking the law. You are literally not allowed to read them.
Furthermore, other articles on similar topics may not be published in Australia.

Presumably the could be posted on an American server, no? Mordy of course is a moron and anyone who really believes in 18c is a moronic mendacious turd because those columns can be posted on an American server and we could still read them. Is Mordy going to go after American firms? Of course he isn’t.

Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

Yea, I can see it and also sympathize with them because in the end it almost always ends up as antisemitism and if there’s one group that has absorbed the brunt of racial hatred it’s Jewish people. I can see that.

However what happened on the bus is not an 18c issue. That is straight out assault and should be seriously treated that way.

Bloody beautiful people. You cats are awesome. I have been out drinking with a mate and you guys shut the daggy dag thing up. Bloooooody faaaantastic. I didn’t waste my time with leftism. Got drunk instead. Much healthier.

Sheesh.
Over a dozen comments on the Bolt court case. More “maybes”, “coulda’s”, “might’aves” and “should’aves” than a peer reviewed, published climate science paper.
Personally I couldn’t give a shit if the Bolt case never happened.

The only real issue is that Abbott promised to repeal 18C then reneged on his promise – strike one.
Then he admitted he had done it for the very worst of all possible reasons – to appease the Muslim community and garner their cooperation – placing them above the law – strike two.
Then he and the other LNP softcocks spent the last few days telling us why we were idiots for ever believing they would repeal 18C in the first place – strike 3.

Vote Labor – get a pack of lying, conniving opportunistic bastards.
Vote Liberal – get a different pack of lying, conniving opportunistic bastards.

Mark Steyn on Abbott: (Abbott said….) pandering to the professional identity-group grievance-mongers will ensure their cooperation in fingering would-be head-hackers with Aussie passports. In fact, the opposite is true.
Abbott is going down in Steyn’s estimation too.

Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

You have got to be joking. Check out “criminal law” which was invented 3000 years ago. I think it deals with threats to kill and assault although I may be wrong. If it doesn’t then a law against offending people might do the same thing I guess.

Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

If my co-religionists believe that they are hopelessly deluded. Who is prosecuting Hizb-e-Tarir for their statements on the street in Sydney? Imagine sitting in a room at the HRC with these guys over tea and biscuits trying to obtain restorative justice!!! LOL

Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

Bloody hell. The Jews enemies want to kill them, not offend them.

I’m starting to think the belief that Jews are smart is a terrible racist myth.

I’m starting to think the belief that Jews are smart is a terrible racist myth.

They generally are, but they instantly forfeit 20 IQ points when politics comes up. They are chronically stupid about political issues. If you did a poll of Jews in 2008 asking if “Barack Obama is the second coming of Jesus”, roughly 75% would have answered “Yes”, without realizing what that implies.

Thought Bolt’s “grievous errors of fact” were trivial ….. stuff like whether it was an auntie or a grandparent.
None of those errors detracted from his point about the activities of ‘white’ Aboriginals milking schemes meant for disadvantaged Aboriginals…… as a starting point.

Dan at 11.31. Yes, of course the criminal law should be brought to bear on the louts who attacked the bus. My point is that I can understand why Jews would feel that 18C is needed to deal with vilification that falls short of criminal conduct. The school bus attack just magnifies the current increase in vilification, albeit that it more serious.

Perhaps you should talk to Colin Rubenstein. he is the most prominent advocate for retention of 18C.

if not for Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

These so called “sad sacks” see themselves as the “voice of the Aboriginal people”?

These very same people have been called “yella fellas” by tribal Aborigines for decades now but no action taken. Why? Because tribal Aborigines don’t regard them as one of theirs and don’t pass on certain cultural ceremonies to them.

Dan at 11.31. Yes, of course the criminal law should be brought to bear on the louts who attacked the bus. My point is that I can understand why Jews would feel that 18C is needed to deal with vilification that falls short of criminal conduct. The school bus attack just magnifies the current increase in vilification, albeit that it more serious.

Given that threats to kill are criminal offenses and given public order laws, the list of criminal prosecutions that could be initiated is almost endless. Then are we supposed to prosecute thousands of people posting hate speech on social media?

Perhaps you should talk to Colin Rubenstein

Why would I do that?

Comments are closed.

Liberty Quotes

The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution.— Ludwig von Mises